Green v. Garrett

63 A.2d 326 (1949)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Green v. Garrett

Maryland Court of Appeals
63 A.2d 326 (1949)

Facts

The Baltimore Stadium (stadium) was built in 1922, at which time the surrounding area was mostly undeveloped. The stadium was seldom used for many years, but that began to change when lights were installed in 1939. Even so, the stadium was used only irregularly for such events as college football games. In July 1944, after the home stadium of the then-minor league Baltimore Baseball and Exhibition Company (Orioles) (defendant) was destroyed by a fire, Baltimore’s mayor offered the stadium to the Orioles on what all parties considered a temporary basis. Nevertheless, in April 1947, the Orioles and the Department of Recreation and Parks of Baltimore City (department) (defendant) reached a long-term agreement for the Orioles to play its home games at the stadium. This resulted in increased revenue for Baltimore but also increased annoyance for Frederick Green and other stadium neighbors (neighbors) (plaintiffs), who were bothered by the increased noise and other disturbances caused by the Orioles’ games, most of which were played at night. Specifically, the neighbors were irked by (1) the stadium’s public-address system, which was used both for game-related announcements and for music and other entertainment unrelated to baseball; (2) the stadium’s flood lights, which shone into the windows of neighboring homes and which could be repositioned; (3) dust and other problems (like blocked driveways) due largely to the stadium’s unpaved parking lots and drivers’ efforts to avoid the unpaved lots; and (4) disruptive behavior by unruly fans. The neighbors sued the department and the Orioles, arguing that the Orioles’ games constituted a nuisance the court should abate by, among other things, granting an injunction against (1) any agreement allowing the Orioles to play in the stadium, (2) the use of the loudspeaker system, (3) certain parking operations, and (4) use of the flood lights. The trial court prohibited the Orioles from using facilities in the stadium’s administration building and limited the use of the public-address system but otherwise denied the neighbors’ requested relief. The neighbors appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Marbury, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership